There
is no question that the United States Constitution was considered to be
an EXPERIMENT. The Federalists and Anti-Federalists alike admitted it
was an experiment, and it has been described as such ever since. Evidently,
Americans use the term not knowing what it actually means or implies.
So, what was it that made this form of government experimental? Before
answering the question, let us initially identify what was NOT unique
about the U.S. Constitution--aspects that many probably consider to exhibit
the unique and singular greatness of the U.S. Constitution, but in reality,
are not unique at all and were in fact borrowed.

First,
the separation of powers in the federal government was not new. That element
of government had been around literally since Moses governed Israel in
Canaan. Great Britain exercised a separation of powers as well: executive
power in the Monarch, legislative power in Parliament and judicial power
in the courts.

Second,
that the form was a democratic-republic was not new. The European states
and countries had exercised self-government to a greater degree than just
about any other people in the history of the world. Thirdly, the experiment
was not in having a bill of rights. Such an acknowledgement of people’s
rights had existed in the European countries since the Magna Charta in
1215. Neither did the experiment lie in such components as term limits,
voting, limited government authority, a two-house congress and the like.
All of these had been well established throughout the governments of the
world. All of those aspects were a given, but were only debated in terms
of preference and compromise.

The
U.S. Constitution was in fact not new on virtually every component of
its composure. So, what made it an EXPERIMENT, such that the freedom it
(along with the State constitutions already in place) was supposed to
protect was very susceptible to abuse and destruction? What was it about
the U.S. Constitution that would transform its character from one governing
the consent of the governed to one governing by the force of the Supreme
Sword of the federal government? What was it about the nature of the constitution
that carried with it serious risk in its implementation? And indeed it
was risky, for why would the form of government be considered an experiment
if the risks (now and the future) would not seriously jeopardize freedom?
If the potential abuses were not serious in nature and scope, then there
would be no need in describing the form of government as an experiment.

In short,
the EXPERIMENT was the attempt to form distinct parallel lines of powers
to the State governments and Federal government with respect to their
separate delegations; to allow “two sovereigns” to “occupy”
the same territory over the same people; and to entrust each representative
in those governments to stay within its own sphere of delegation; to allow
for a standing military in the hands of the federal government and a militia
army of the people in the hands of the States. This
was the experiment in the world of political and social science: having
two “sovereigns” with completely different purposes over the
same people throughout different states with different interests. For
many during that day, it was literally considered impossible; thus, the
experimental nature of attempting to.

I submit,
that while a good run was made of the experiment, the results of the test
are in, and the experiment proves to have failed. I understand that it
is hard for Americans to reach this conclusion for a variety of reasons,
and this is not surprising, for as our founders said, “all experience
hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable
than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.”
After a while, this disposition to suffer reaches the level of voluntary
and consensual slavery. To avoid that treachery, freedom-loving Americans
need to get over themselves and their substance-less pride and do what
is right for freedom’s sake.

Do I
love America? Absolutely. I love its history, legacy and heritage. I study
it every day. But I love freedom more--freedom that I want to experience
myself, not just read about in history books. I can assure you, however,
I have no permanent affection towards forms of government. They are merely
tools to reach an end, namely freedom. Government is our servant and we
its master. When government becomes destructive to freedom, I have no
qualms about abolishing the existing government and forming new government
to secure what God has granted to me, my wife, my child, my family, my
community and my body-politic.

Do I
believe that the U.S. Constitution equates to freedom? Absolutely not;
no more than I believe that a law acknowledging my right to defend myself
grants me the right to blow a would-be rapist to smithereens if he were
to attempt to hurt my wife and child. I believe what human history proves,
that a constitution is only one of the measures in society to protect
freedom; that a “constitution may happen to be free, and the [citizen]
not”;[1] and that a constitution
can become practically useless in restraining government. I believe that
constitutions should be formed and re-formed by a body-politic as they
deem it necessary to protect themselves.

I do
not understand the mentality of those shallow-thinking citizens who have
the bumper sticker approach to government, “Support America. Be
American!” as if to say, resistance to government or abolishing
government contradicts our patriotic duty and is un-American. To the contrary,
doing your patriotic duty means being ever vigilant and honest in your
evaluation of political and societal conditions. It means being liberal-minded
(not in the political-party sense) in our approach to government, and
if necessary, instituting new forms.

Advertisement

Is it
so surprising that the societal and political changes over 250 years would
completely change the character and nature of a union and the application
of the “Supreme Law of the Land”? The union and the U.S. Constitution
were actually bound for deconstruction, just as all governments are and
all political unions that attempt to be perpetual. That the Tower-of-Babel-mentality
can be successful mocks common sense and historical proof. Human nature
does not allow it. The form of government of the U.S. Constitution was
an experiment, admittedly not destined to live forever, for as soon as
society’s character and nature change, so does the constitution
governing those people.
Do you think that the philosophy, beliefs, cultures and morals of a people
can substantially change but the “Supreme Law of the Land”
remain the same as to those completely different people in completely
different times and circumstances? Get
real.

Justice
Joseph Story, one of the most nationalistic-minded of the founding generation,
admits the same thing. Concerning the inevitable fall of the political
experiment, the U.S. Constitution, he says,

“[T]he
fabric [of the constitution] may fall; for the work of man is perishable.
Nay, it must fall, if there be not the vital spirit in the people, which
can alone nourish, sustain, and direct, all its movements.” [2]

This
“vital spirit” of freedom has so long been absent in this
country and in such a shortage of knowledge, virtue and energy that to
suggest freedom can be restored in America through the current union and
form of government calls into question the judgment of those who honestly
hold that opinion. Does this mean that freedom cannot be restored in America?
Absolutely not. Freedom can be restored and it will, but only in those
places where the people believe in and practice independence, honesty
and self-government enough to part with the federal government that has
filled the gap of the people’s irresponsibility and lust for comfort
and money with tyranny and oppression.

Does
the U.S. Constitution contain good principles? It sure does. It contains
principles that had been accepted through political enlightened thought
for centuries, just as the British Constitution did. Yet, despite containing
good principles, the founding generation believed that constitutions notwithstanding,
there comes a time when to remain in a political association shirks our
duty to God and man. Do I believe the U.S. Constitution is perfect? Absolutely
not. Neither did the founders as they said they were only forming a “more
perfect union,” in anticipation that their posterity (and even current
generation) would retain the priority of their virtue, morals and good
faith.

This
description of the U.S. Constitution necessarily means that there could
be a better constitution; a better form of government; and an even more
perfect union. But such a “better” government will not be
obtained by keeping a union so large with a constitution that “grants”
to the federal government plenary power to govern hundreds of millions
of people for the supposed “general welfare” of “all”
and to pass any and all laws “necessary and proper” in the
“pursuance” of (e.g. “living constitution”) such
ends; and where the people in the States have lost virtually all control
over internal polity and interest in the name of the “Supreme Law
of the Land” imposed upon us since Chief Justice John Marshall rendered
his opinions in the early 1800s.

I propose
this truth: a constitution is to be judged by its practical merits and
revealing experience and not upon some indeterminable “intent”
of what the “founding fathers meant.” Moreover, I ask, which
founding fathers? The ones that preferred a monarchical form of government
and believed the U.S. Constitution to be a consolidating effect upon the
people as one body-politic? The ones that believed that Great Britain’s
form of government was the best in the world and should be replicated
here and who thought the U.S. Constitution was a stepping-stone to that
end? The ones that imposed nationalistic practices in the federal government
even during the first term of the United States’ first president?
Hoping for a return to “what the founders intended” is chasing
a moving shadow and ignores the reality of what this union has become
“in pursuance of” the U.S. Constitution, all the intentions
in the world notwithstanding.

You
may argue that those nationalistic-supremacy ideas were not the ones accepted
by the founding fathers (which ones?), yet history proves that the federal
government has reached its current status largely with the consent of
all three federal branches throughout the past two centuries, in the authority
of the U.S. Constitution, even from the very beginning. Has the constitution
stopped this power crave and expansion? Do you think that the U.S. Supreme
Court Judges have not put good reasoning to their opinions when they analyze
the constitutional powers granted to the federal government? Are they
all just a bunch of idiots or conspiratorial maniacs, or has the constitution
not adequately maintained the lines of parallel power between people and
federal government and between State government and federal government,
that being the very core of this constitutional experiment?

The
federal government even fought a Civil War against fellow Americans to
retain this “constitutional” Nationalistic Supremacy over
the people of the States to govern themselves, all under the authority
of the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Constitution’s effect to this
national-supremacy-end has only intensified since then and gotten progressively
worse. If it took over two hundred years to get to this point, which you
may perceive as constitutional degradation, how long do you think it would
take to get back to 1787-intent using the same constitution that has empowered
the federal government during those 200-plus years? Let us shed these
illusions based merely in the wishing and not in the reality.

Subscribe
to the NewsWithViews Daily News Alerts!

Enter
Your E-Mail Address:

America’s
founding generation told their posterity that this form of government
was an EXPERIMENT. Like them, we should recognize the reality that one
day new forms of government would need to be instituted for freedom’s
sake, just as they showed us in the Declaration of Independence, which
cited not the English Constitution as a basis of their right to live freely,
but the Natural Laws of God. These laws are based upon the principles
self-preservation, -defense, -improvement and -government. We, their posterity,
must make similar decisions, using their good example, to secure freedom
for ourselves and our posterity. May we endeavor to experiment in freedom
once again.

Footnotes:

1,
Charles de Baron Montesquieu and Julian Hawthorne, ed., The Spirit of
Laws: The World’s Great Classics, vol. 1 (London: The London Press)
183.2,
Joseph Story, A Familiar Exposition of the United States Constitution,
(New York, NY, Harper and Brother, 1868 reprinted), 100-101.

Timothy
Baldwin is an attorney from Pensacola, FL, who received his bachelor of
arts degree at the University of West Florida and who graduated from Cumberland
School of Law at Samford University in Birmingham, AL. After having received
his Juris Doctorate degree from Cumberland School of Law, Baldwin became
a Felony Prosecutor in the 1st District of Florida. In 2006, he started
his own law practice, where he created specialized legal services entirely
for property management companies.

Like his father,
Chuck Baldwin, Timothy Baldwin is an astute writer of cutting-edge political
articles, which he posts on his website, www.libertydefenseleague.com.
Baldwin is also the author of the soon-to-be-released book entitled, Freedom
For A Change, in which Baldwin expounds the fundamental principles
of freedom believed by America’s forefathers and gives inspiring
and intelligent application of those principles to our current political
and cultural standing.

Baldwin is involved
in important state sovereignty movement issues, including being co-counsel
in the federal litigation in Montana involving the Firearms Freedom Act,
the likes of which is undoubtedly a pivotal and essential ingredient to
restoring freedom and federalism in the states of America. Baldwin is
also a member of freedom organizations, such as The Oath-Keepers, and
believes that the times require all freedom-loving Americans to educate,
invigorate and activate the principles of freedom within the States of
America for ourselves and our posterity.